the Bonneville Power Administration, would ultimately meet in the 

 Halls of Congress and begin yet another chapter in history. 



The situation today is this: We face a double crises — the demise 

 of both of these symbols of the Pacific Northwest. We all know that 

 the salmon reached the crisis stage with the endangered species 

 listings 2 years ago. 



What is not as well understood, however, is that the Bonneville 

 Power Administration also faces the greatest crisis in its history. 

 We all share the desire to rebuild the salmon runs. Simply, it is 

 the right thing to do. 



Likewise, we all should share the desire to see that Bonneville 

 survives. The collective benefits reaped from the generation of hy- 

 dropower for the past 60 years are immeasurable. We should not 

 be in a hurry to throw away that portion of the region's legacy. 



Through a legislative twist of fate in 1980, salmon and Bonne- 

 ville became entangled in a budgetary bureaucracy. Fish and wild- 

 life mitigation in the Columbia basin became dependent on the rev- 

 enue-generating capabilities of Bonneville Power. 



The Northwest Power Act of 1980 established the Columbia 

 basin Fish and Wildlife Program and directed that Bonneville reve- 

 nues be used to fund it. Depending on your perspective, the ar- 

 rangement is either a blessing or a curse. 



It's a relationship not unlike that of a mail order bride and her 

 newly acquainted husband, incompatible, yet dependent. 



Today, we find ourselves at a crossroads. The region needs to 

 save its salmon runs and ensure the long-term viability of the Bon- 

 neville Power Administration. On the one hand, the Federal hydro 

 system has had a role in the decline of the salmon. On the other 

 hand, it is a primary source of hard currency that will pay for re- 

 covery measures. It is in the region's best interest to see that both 

 survive. 



Until recently, many believed that Bonneville could absorb the 

 cost of salmon recovery, meet all of its statutory and financial re- 

 sponsibilities, and remain a competitive supplier of electricity in 

 the region. 



That scenario now, however, is very much in doubt. For a variety 

 of reasons, extending far beyond the cost of salmon recovery, Bon- 

 neville is losing its competitive edge. A series of unfortunate 

 events, some self-inflicted, some not, have rearranged Bonneville's 

 role in the Northwest electricity market. 



The WPPSS nuclear plant debacle, 8 consecutive years of 

 drought, widely fluctuating aluminum prices, the deregulation of 

 the utility industry, access to low-cost natural gas, and other fac- 

 tors have created a very real competitive and financial crisis for 

 Bonneville. 



With each passing day it becomes more likely that legislation 

 will be necessary to ensure Bonneville's viability over the long 

 term. The question, though, is: What will the legislation look like? 



There has been talk of cost caps and other approaches during the 

 last few weeks. Whether a cost cap is a good idea remains to be 

 seen. We will discuss that and other proposals today. 



The purpose of today's hearing is to discuss these issues and look 

 for possible solutions. We are hoping our witnesses will provide 



